By Agendas: Katrin Kuusemäe

The style is confrontational and critical, employing negative metaphors, such as the "crippled tax system," to characterize the former policy. The address is presented to the minister in the form of a question, but its true aim is a political attack against the opposition. The tone is persuasive and accusatory, stressing the logical conclusion that the money should remain in the hands of the workers.

The speaking style is formal, objective, and strictly informative, consistent with the role of the committee rapporteur. He/She focuses on summarizing facts and procedural decisions, avoiding emotional or personal viewpoints. He/She repeatedly refuses to express his/her personal opinion in the chamber, instead offering the opportunity for discussion outside the hall.

The speaking style is formal, objective, and informative, characteristic of a commission rapporteur who conveys procedural facts. He/She employs logical appeal, citing government justifications and protocol, and avoids emotional evaluations. The repeated emphasis that he/she is speaking only about the commission's discussion demonstrates a desire to limit his/her responsibility regarding substantive issues.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and fact-based, focusing on conveying the content of the Constitutional Committee session and its procedural decisions. The speaker strictly maintains the role of a rapporteur, avoiding emotional assessments and relying on the explanations provided by representatives of the ministries.

His/Her rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and strictly procedural, focusing on the accurate reporting of the events and decisions made during the Constitutional Committee meeting. The speech is logical and fact-based, including the reading out of names and voting results. When responding to questions, he/she is brief and defends the concise nature of the committee's debate by referencing the rapporteur's thorough work.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and rigorous, fitting the role of the committee rapporteur. The speaker employs a logical approach, presenting fact-based summaries of the discussions, voting results, and official positions. He/She refrains from expressing personal opinions, offering to discuss them separately in the hallway, which emphasizes his/her role as an impartial conveyor of information.

The style is formal and interrogative, addressing the minister directly and respectfully ("Dear Hanno!"). The speaker employs logical argumentation, emphasizing the economic benefits of domestic production, and seeks specific data (the interest shown by foreign investors) to evaluate the success of the policy.

The rhetorical style is formal, neutral, and concise, limiting itself to a brief overview of the commission's procedural decisions. The discourse is logical and fact-based, focusing on the communication of procedures and dates while avoiding emotional appeals.

The rhetorical style is formal, informative, and neutral, restricting itself to a brief overview of the proceedings within the commission. The discourse is logical and fact-based, highlighting procedural decisions and the consensus backing for the proposal. Emotional or personal appeals are entirely absent.

The rhetorical style is formal and interrogative, respectfully addressing the presiding officer of the session and the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee. The speech is brief and focuses on logical, fact-based analysis (NATO enlargement), avoiding emotional appeals.